Charles Powers | PubMed Health

PubMed2005

Using integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to guide risk-based environmental clean-up decisions.

Government and private sector organizations are increasingly turning to the use of maps and other visual models to provide a depiction of environmental hazards and the potential risks they represent to humans and ecosystems. Frequently, the graphic presentation is tailored to address a specific contaminant, its location and possible exposure pathways, and potential receptors. Its format is usually driven by the data available, choice of graphics technology, and the audience being served. A format that is effective for displaying one contaminant at one scale at one site, however, may be ineffective in accurately portraying the circumstances surrounding a different contaminant at the same site, or the same contaminant at a different site, because of limitations in available data or the graphics technology being used. This is the daunting challenge facing the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is responsible for the nation's legacy wastes from nuclear weapons research, testing, and production at over 100 sites in the United States. In this article, we discuss the development and use of integrated geospatial mapping and conceptual site models to identify hazards and evaluate alternative long-term environmental clean-up strategies at DOE sites located across the United States. While the DOE probably has the greatest need for such information, the Department of Defense and other public and private responsible parties for many large and controversial National Priority List or Superfund sites would benefit from a similar approach.

Conservation of Natural Resources↗

PubMed2004

The role of risk and future land use in cleanup decisions at the Department Of Energy.

As a result of the legacy of the Cold War, the Departments of Energy and Defense are involved in massive cleanup and remediation projects. While health risk to humans and ecological receptors is perceived to be the basis for remediation, this assumption is rarely examined. In this article, we examine the role of risk and future land-use designations in cleanup decisions, using the Department of Energy's self-assessment of 36 sites. We then discuss the risk-related tools that might be required to address the cleanup challenge. Much of the current cleanup program is driven by compliance with federal and state statutes and regulations, presumably to protect human health and the environment. Compliance, however, is not synonymous with cleanup. Although some of these laws and regulations take risk into account, the lack of site-specific data on exposures and risk scenarios, and the lack of attention to future land use or end states, has often resulted in disconnects between risk and cleanup goals, risk and final end states, and cleanup levels and end state or subsequent land use. Partly, these disconnects result from the need for a range of technical, economic, sociological, and public policy tools to address the issues. A better transfer of information among and within Department of Energy facilities, operations offices, and DOE headquarters is required. Further, linking cleanup decisions and goals with the final end state involves a number of risk tradeoffs, including (1) ecological versus human health, (2) worker versus public health, (3) among competing contaminated areas, (4) among temporal patterns of cleanup, (5) among different ecological receptors (plants vs. animals, one animal vs. another), and (6) among the sites across the DOE complex. For the nation, balancing among risks is essential within sites and among Department of Energy sites, as well as among other remediation sites (such as those of Department of Defense and Superfund sites).

Animals↗